How would I test for this? (split grade printing, hype or real)

[Pieter12]

My point is that introducing exposure variation with contrast control, you are introducing a mathematical variation by a million times. Combine that with split grade printing and the variation goes into the Zillion, thus putting exposure control out the window. Do you get my drift?

But having a zillion possibilities on hand, and a method for homing in on the right one, will give a better print in less time.

 

[cliveh]

But having a zillion possibilities on hand, and a method for homing in on the right one, will give a better print in less time.

I take my hat for you in being able to select the right one.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

The technique under discussion is not the only way to deal with difficult negatives. The real answer is to prevent difficult negatives to start with. I use compensating development, which accentuates contrast in the shadows, and reduces it in the highlights, which is the usual goal of split-grade printing.

This is like the Gordian knot. Don't kill yourself trying to master a difficult skill to solve a problem that can be prevented. It isn't necessary to use stand development, which is taking compensating development to the extreme. HP5+ or Tri-X Pan in D-76/ID-11 1+1 will do just great. Why not try that?

 

[Pieter12]

I take my hat for you in being able to select the right one.

Thank you.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Having infinite degrees of exposure/contrast doesn't necessarily mean that finding the right one, or close enough to the right one, will be difficult. It's like measuring a mid-point to some extent: Sure, there are, for all practical purposes, infinite increments between one point and another, but you don't have to try all the possibilities to get close to the middle. Then it's just a matter of how precise you want to be, your acceptable margin of error.

Optimizing two things, like contrast and exposure is a bit more difficult, but not that much. Once the changes are small enough not to make a visible difference, the acceptable combination has been reached.

The trick is to know how you want your print to look instead of trying out all the possibilities and seeing if you like them. Now that could take a while ...

Doremus

 

[Pieter12]

know how you want your print to look

Exactly.

 

[Craig]

Optimizing two things, like contrast and exposure is a bit more difficult, but not that much.

Having something like a Zonemaster makes it fairly easy. You meter the deepest shadow you want detail in, same with a highlight and the meter calculates a contrast grade to hold those values and an exposure. I can usually arrive at a print I want with 2 or 3 test strips after using the Zonemaster, depending on how fussy I want to be.

There are times I have tweaked things by 1/12 of a stop here and there, but the Zonemaster gets me very close, very quickly.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

There is no prize for doing things the hard way. Besides, contrast should not be manipulated very much at all, except when using different lenses that have markedly different flare characteristics. The main objective of B&W photography is not tones but interesting images.

 

[MattKing]

A good printer, taking advantage of the extensive and flexible techniques available to them, can often reveal something truly wonderful from a negative that would yield nothing but the truly mundane if printed "straight".

 

[Pieter12]

There is no prize for doing things the hard way. Besides, contrast should not be manipulated very much at all, except when using different lenses that have markedly different flare characteristics. The main objective of B&W photography is not tones but interesting images.

As chiseled in the holy stone of photography?

 

[Augustus Caesar]

As chiseled in the holy stone of photography?

Well, why do you feel the need to manipulate contrast so much? Take a photo of a grey wall. Does it have to have a pure white or pure black? Of course not! Most of the great photographs we cherish are not manipulated at all! Isn't that ironic? Content!

List of photographs considered the most important - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MattKing]

Well, why do you feel the need to manipulate contrast so much? Take a photo of a grey wall. Does it have to have a pure white or pure black? Of course not! Most of the great photographs we cherish are not manipulated at all! Isn't that ironic? Content!

List of photographs considered the most important - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Strangely enough, I've never seen a list of the best prints of all time.
Who cares if our prints are important - I don't?
I care if my prints move/interest/intrigue/impress/enchant the people who view them.
If you are prioritizing importance, you may as well view an image on a cell phone screen - it will accomplish that task.
Or back in the day, view the drugstore print.

 

[Pieter12]

Well, why do you feel the need to manipulate contrast so much? Take a photo of a grey wall. Does it have to have a pure white or pure black? Of course not! Most of the great photographs we cherish are not manipulated at all! Isn't that ironic? Content!

List of photographs considered the most important - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The title says it all, the most important, not necessarily the greatest.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Having something like a Zonemaster makes it fairly easy. You meter the deepest shadow you want detail in, same with a highlight and the meter calculates a contrast grade to hold those values and an exposure. I can usually arrive at a print I want with 2 or 3 test strips after using the Zonemaster, depending on how fussy I want to be.

There are times I have tweaked things by 1/12 of a stop here and there, but the Zonemaster gets me very close, very quickly.

There are many times when I want a lot more contrast in the mid-tones or shadows of a print than would allow the highlights to be printed straight with and detail at all. In fact, a "straight print" that has exposure and contrast adjusted so the shadows and highlights both have "appropriate" detail rarely satisfies me. I plan on a lot more work in most cases.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Doremus Scudder]

There is no prize for doing things the hard way. Besides, contrast should not be manipulated very much at all, except when using different lenses that have markedly different flare characteristics. The main objective of B&W photography is not tones but interesting images.

I beg to differ. I won't exhibit a print that has lousy tonalities. Bad prints of "interesting" subjects are all over the place and about as satisfying as an out-of-tune and full-of-missed-notes musical performance of a great piece.

When photographing, I'm concerning myself with what I point my camera at; when printing, I'm fully concentrated on tonalities. Somewhere between those two I've decided on cropping (usually when taking the image).

"Interesting is easy; beautiful is difficult." (Gustav Mahler)

Best,

Doremus

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Well, why do you feel the need to manipulate contrast so much? Take a photo of a grey wall. Does it have to have a pure white or pure black? Of course not! Most of the great photographs we cherish are not manipulated at all! Isn't that ironic? Content!

List of photographs considered the most important - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, most of the photographs I cherish are well-printed. Excellent photographers have always been excellent craftsmen. If contrast controls weren't available from printing paper, they were achieved other ways. I don't know what makes you think O'Sullivan, Hines, Steichen, White, Lartigue, Watkins, Karsh, Adams, Weston, Strand, etc., etc. (and etc.), (all from the list you linked to) were not excellent printers and, most importantly, "manipulated" their prints (and or negatives) to get the contrast and exposure they wanted. Aside from a few of the early photographs in the list that are of purely historical interest, the rest are expertly printed.

Content without Craft equals no Communication.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I beg to differ. I won't exhibit a print that has lousy tonalities. Bad prints of "interesting" subjects are all over the place and about as satisfying as an out-of-tune and full-of-missed-notes musical performance of a great piece.

When photographing, I'm concerning myself with what I point my camera at; when printing, I'm fully concentrated on tonalities. Somewhere between those two I've decided on cropping (usually when taking the image).

"Interesting is easy; beautiful is difficult." (Gustav Mahler)

Best,

Doremus

I understand what you are saying; my point is that it is much easier to achieve high-quality prints than one would be led to believe after perusing this thread. I do it all the time! I imagine that most visitors to this forum are not looking for exotic or esoteric methods or processes. Professionals and amateurs alike have only so much time, and knowledge of the most efficient methods consistent with high quality is valuable knowledge. For the sake of the beginner or even advanced darkroom worker (especially 35mm camera user), it would be advisable to avoid promoting such techniques as stand development, split-grade printing, etc. These are not recommended by the manufacturers, and for good reason. Kodak (and others) has published extensive materials in the past on the best practices. It would make sense to study such materials than to repeat folklore about half-understood methods and techniques. Most workers do not even know how VC paper works. I remember a pro buying a package of Polycontrast paper at the shop where I worked. I asked him casually what filter he usually used. He said "My negatives are so good I don't need to use a filter".



Processes that are easy to control, simple to do, and reliable: this is the goal.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Well, most of the photographs I cherish are well-printed. Excellent photographers have always been excellent craftsmen. I

Doremus

This is false. Some were not. Many great photographers never worked in a darkroom, especially photojournalists.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

This is false. Some were not. Many great photographers never worked in a darkroom, especially photojournalists.

Yeah, but the printers were good! Mapplethorpe's work is a great example. In this case, it's teamwork, but the result is the same: good exposure at the capture stage, good negative development and then good printing. No sloppiness is implied just because three different people do these things.

By the way, Ilford has a tutorial on split-grade printing if memory serves me correctly.

Doremus

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Yeah, but the printers were good! Mapplethorpe's work is a great example. In this case, it's teamwork, but the result is the same: good exposure at the capture stage, good negative development and then good printing. No sloppiness is implied just because three different people do these things.

By the way, Ilford has a tutorial on split-grade printing if memory serves me correctly.

Doremus

Many of the combat photographers never touched a darkroom, I believe. It just depends on what kind of photography one is doing. Working in uncontrolled conditions is completely different from studio work (e.g., Mapplethorpe). I'll wager that a majority of those coming here for advice are not interested primarily in studio work. Thus, advice more appropriate for controlled conditions is of little use when bullets are whizzing past your head.

So, instead of leaping into advice-giving, it would be wise to query the party asking his question, to determine what kind of work he is doing.

Robert Capa | The Falling Soldier | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

<strong>Inscription:</strong> Signed in white ink, lower right of image; stamped three times, verso: "Robert Capa // Not for Reproduction;" typed note affixed to print, verso: "Robert Capa // Spain 1937 // Falling Loyalist soldier in moment of death c

www.metmuseum.org

By the way, there is some question about this photo;

Truth in the Making: The Never-Ending Saga of Capa’s Falling Soldier - The Volunteer

This past July, around the 73rd anniversary of the outbreak of the Civil War and 11 days after the opening of a large Robert Capa exhibit at the Catalan National Museum of Art…

albavolunteer.org

Another:

How The Iconic D-Day Photos Were Almost Lost Forever

Watch the video that shows how famed photojournalist Robert Capa's negatives were almost lost

time.com

 

[Doremus Scudder]

You're missing my point. Capa et al. had people that were excellent craftspeople printing their work. Crappy printing would have ruined it. And, the photographers knew how to expose correctly; they had experience and ability there.

Yeah, sure ,there are the occasional exception... But look up "exception," please.

Best,

Doremus

 

[warden]

By the way, Ilford has a tutorial on split-grade printing if memory serves me correctly.

You are correct. I learned how to split grade print from Ilford.

 

[thepond]

Alot of the videos show the alternate method of using split grade as a sort of burning method.

Get the base exposure and contrast grade set for the shadows, and then go back and find the exposure for the high lights. then do the final print using both expsures.

 

[markbau]

Alot of the videos show the alternate method of using split grade as a sort of burning method.

Get the base exposure and contrast grade set for the shadows, and then go back and find the exposure for the high lights. then do the final print using both expsures.

Or simply choose the right filter or Magenta/Yellow combination on your colour head. Same result.

 

[Carnie Bob]

I understand what you are saying; my point is that it is much easier to achieve high-quality prints than one would be led to believe after perusing this thread. I do it all the time! I imagine that most visitors to this forum are not looking for exotic or esoteric methods or processes. Professionals and amateurs alike have only so much time, and knowledge of the most efficient methods consistent with high quality is valuable knowledge. For the sake of the beginner or even advanced darkroom worker (especially 35mm camera user), it would be advisable to avoid promoting such techniques as stand development, split-grade printing, etc. These are not recommended by the manufacturers, and for good reason. Kodak (and others) has published extensive materials in the past on the best practices. It would make sense to study such materials than to repeat folklore about half-understood methods and techniques. Most workers do not even know how VC paper works. I remember a pro buying a package of Polycontrast paper at the shop where I worked. I asked him casually what filter he usually used. He said "My negatives are so good I don't need to use a filter".



Processes that are easy to control, simple to do, and reliable: this is the goal.

*****These are not recommended by the manufacturers, and for good reason. Kodak (and others) has published extensive materials in the past on the best practices. It would make sense to study such materials than to repeat folklore about half-understood methods and techniques. Most workers do not even know how VC paper works.***

Not true , when Ilford Warmtone was introduced a select group of printers worldwide (myself included) were asked to make a selection of 5 different emulsions that Ilford was considering, we were asked to print and report back which colour of box we preferred after printing a negative on the five different papers. It turned out overwhelmingly we chose Ilford Warmtone which was the Red Box. At that time the selling point by Ilford was to be able to use different filters within the printing cycle to achieve a more refined image.
I have split printed from that timeline with every image, I use the low end filter to bring in delicate highlights and then with the high end filter I bring in the contrast. I have printed both single grade filter and double grade filter for over 45 years now for clients and can say in my world a single grade print cannot equal a split print.
This has been a long standing topic here and on other threads and IMO I think the experience level of the printer dictates which way they will proceed with the print.